US Constitution and Individual Freedom

The Leak Heard Around the World

According to most experts, this is the first time a premature leak of a Supreme Court decision has ever occurred in American judicial history.  There have been numerous other Supreme Court cases that might have warranted such an action, such as Dred Scott v. Sandford (ruling that the Constitution didn’t confer the rights and privileges of citizenship on Black people), Korematsu v. United States (upholding Japanese internment camps during WW II), and Helvering v. Davis (allowing Congress to spend money on anything it considered to be in the general welfare, funding our current welfare state). 

Abortion rights are the Holy Grail of the collectivist elite.  Abortion is so critically important to their socialist agenda that some bureaucratic lackey saw fit to leak a draft opinion written by Justice Alito in Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization, a major legal challenge to Roe v. Wade.  The “Dobbs” case is based on the 2018 Mississippi law that bans abortion after the 15th week of pregnancy.  Leaking this draft opinion was calculated to promote a groundswell of protest to force justices to change their final opinions in this critically important case. 

These are just a few of the dozen or more cases in which Supreme Court decisions eliminated our constitutional rights and shredded our founding concept of federalism.  And yet, no draft opinions were leaked for any of them, even though the Supreme Court has consistently used its fabricated authority to essentially rewrite the Constitution in a completely unconstitutional manner.

Abortion deals with love, sex, life, and death, and, therefore, is an extremely emotional issue.  To have a meaningful discussion about abortion, it is necessary to set aside emotions and deal with the scientific and social facts of life.  In that setting, the discourse must revolve around when life begins and when is it viable.

In 1973, the Supreme Court established a woman’s legal right to an abortion with the decision of Roe v. Wade. The major portion of the written opinions, for and against, dealt with the issue of when life begins. The science of genetics in that era was still in its infancy. The justices relied on historical references for the purposes of the legal opinion which generally proposed that a fetus was considered “alive” when the mother felt fetal movement (quickening).

Because of today’s incredible advances in genetics and molecular biology, however, it is possible to make a logical and cogent argument, medically defensible, that life does indeed begin at conception.

Each individual person is genetically defined by his or her DNA. That genetic blueprint is absolutely unique for each individual to the point that DNA can be used legally to identify and convict criminals. Since half our DNA comes from each parent, the union of the male DNA and the female DNA produces fertilized cells whose genetic composition is similar to, but nevertheless not at all the same as that of either parent. The molecular result of conception is a separate living organism, albeit in an immature form, that is defined by the exclusive chemistry of its own unique DNA.

When a woman claims to have the right to do anything she wants with her body, I wholeheartedly agree. The problem is that the baby growing inside her uterus, regardless of its size, shape, or age is a distinct and separate individual, defined by its DNA, who has all the individual rights of a living being from the moment of conception.

Science, therefore, defines the beginning of a new unique life as the union of the sperm and the ovum.  The distinctiveness of a fertilized ovum based on DNA is undeniable regardless of emotion and political agendas and must be accepted as scientific fact.

Proponents of abortion invoke viability outside the uterus as an argument that the fetus is not a living independent being.  That argument necessarily requires a set of legal criteria to define independence and also creates the possibility of euthanasia for anyone who is deemed dependent.  In reality, children are dependent on adults for years after birth.  Very few teenagers or even college students can be considered truly independent.  Is a millennial living in his parents’ basement independent?  And how about your 88-year-old grandmother residing in an assisted living facility? 

Once the legal right to live is based on the ability to care for oneself physically, emotionally, and financially, government sanctioned euthanasia would become a reality.  Totalitarian governments allow dictators and bureaucrats to take human life without the legal protections such as habeas corpus and Due Process that are enshrined in our Bill of Rights.  Initially, it would begin with a baby in the womb, a dependent senior citizen, or a terminally ill patient.  The next step down that slippery slope would be the sanctioned killing of the mentally ill, those with birth defects, then dissidents, protesters, and those who refuse to comply.  The history of mankind has unfortunately allowed us to witness atrocities of this magnitude.  We must never forget those lessons of history. 

And that is the endgame of the global elite and why abortion is so vitally important to their socialist agenda.    

It is not necessary to believe in God or any other deity to understand that morality in some general form exists on a higher plane than the desires of human beings and the dictates of any government or its bureaucrats.  Legal systems in civilized nations all contain prohibitions against killing, stealing, lying, and harming others.  These laws are all based on various moral codes, religious and secular, that have existed for centuries and whose purpose is to avoid anarchy and chaos and to allow people to live in peace with each other.   Our own Constitution is based on protecting and securing those laws to ensure our personal safety and individual freedom. 

The act of killing a human being outside the sanctions of any generally accepted moral code invests the ultimate control of life and death in common men who can then create their own versions of moral law.   

Resist Tyranny and Trust in Freedom!

Show More

Related Articles


  1. Exactly the debate points I have been advancing on social media. Emotion creates a brain block that does not allow any rational thinking.

  2. So forcing someone to carry a baby, and give birth isn’t a violation of their freedom? You are an idiot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button

Cart Summary

    Product Price Quantity Total

Cart totals

Subtotal $0.00
Tax $0.00
Total $0.00